判决理由
Breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 can give rise to a claim for compensation for distress alone, without requiring pecuniary loss. The misuse of private information is a tort. Service of proceedings on Google outside the jurisdiction was permitted.
事实
Three claimants alleged that Google had tracked their internet browsing activity on Apple Safari browsers using cookies, circumventing the browser's default privacy settings, and then used this data for targeted advertising without their knowledge or consent. They claimed damages for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and misuse of private information.
判决摘要
The Court of Appeal held that s.13 DPA 1998, interpreted in light of EU Directive 95/46/EC, permitted claims for distress alone without proving financial loss. The court also confirmed that misuse of private information is a tort (not merely an equitable wrong), enabling service out of the jurisdiction. This was a significant expansion of data protection remedies.
关键引述
"The right to compensation for distress caused by breach of the data protection principles would be emasculated if claimants could only recover if they also suffered pecuniary loss."
— Lord Dyson MR
后续处理
Confirmed by the Data Protection Act 2018 (s.168) which explicitly permits compensation for distress without pecuniary damage. A landmark in data privacy litigation.